Mini #682: C9++ (Game Over!)

[Kairyuu]

Alright. I'm just going to go for it, as I can't see getting enough votes on Zade for a lynch in just 1.5 days.

unvote

and

vote: Springlullaby

[iamausername]

Votecount #17!

springlullaby (4) - sekinj, mykonian, Scigatt, Kairyuu
sekinj (3) - CF Riot, Scheherazade, SilverPhoenix
Scheherazade (2) - Artem, wolframnhart
Artem (1) - springlullaby
Scigatt (1) - germy

Not Voting (1) - Ku_F

7 to lynch.

CLICK HERE FOR DEADLINE CLOCK

.

Still seeking a replacement for Ku_F, but having no luck so far.

[springlullaby]

@Springlullaby:

I already told you that I think my prodding them was justified at the time. And I posted content as I said I would.

Even if those posts hadn't been essentially all you posted for 2-3 days, you are ignoring the entire point of my quoting them. You claimed to have never made a post that was nothing but a prod. Those three posts are perfect examples of just that. You ask for lurkers to post, and then say nothing else. Plus, these posts spanned 2-3 days, with no other posts between them. The fact that you keep trying to dodge the issue does not sit well with me. I would seriously consider switching my vote to you at deadline if I can't get people to join my case instead.

Man you are getting on my nerves with this, you are picking on a point I already explained multiple times:

1. I never said that I had never made a post that was nothing but a prod.

2. I never dodged the issue, I answered since the first time you mentioned it and

multiples time afterward

that I felt the prods were warranted at the time.

Tell me, do you think that the prods were not warranted at the time?

3. Check Darkstarlkers mafia, I posted prods only for even longer stretches of time and I was town. It is a nulltell from me.

4. If still don't like my posting prods and think me scum because of it, you're wrong but fine. I'll be damned before I repeat myself again.

Oh but I think it holds water, I

think that something you have done yourself as scum is a good indication of what another scum may do in the same situation

, but I'm pretty sure my view on that is controversial. The point is Artem expressed the same view as you in Newbie 588, and -though he was scum, and I was right about him - I think he was sincere, which make me suspect him possibly using this argument as town.

Two things: First, you still haven't explained why you used the argument when you knew that it would amount to nothing.

I think you don't know how to read as I expressively said that I think it holds water. The point I made is that Artem using it is scummy because in Newbie 588 he wondered at my using the same kind of argument, and I think he was being genuine, hence I don't think him using this argument is genuine.

Second, the bold is serious WIFOM, especially since, as I explained to Artem, what you would do in one situation has absolutely no effect on determining the alignment of someone else when they do something in the same situation, because people have a tendency to think differently from each other.


If they didn't, then there would be no point playing mafia because every scum would act the same and every townie would act the same in any given scenerio. The scum would therefore not be able to hide and the town would win every time.

This is your opinion, you'll excuse me if I stand by mine as you have yet to point out the scientific study which proves me wrong.

Beside the discussion on the validity of this argument belong in MD, not in a game.

More importantly, whether you think it is a valid argument IS BESIDE THE POINT.

Reading you, I think you don't understand my point. Lemme draw a pic to help comprehension along.

[springlullaby]

While I was looking at sekinj, I took another look at this post. (Maybe someone spotted this before, I'm not sure.)

Right, I'm not particularly enjoying the new turn of the discussion and wouldn't be unhappy if you guys would just leave the setup alone. It's no fun and I think scum have brains too.

Germy, I still think you're most probably town, but you're starting to push it.
What's the point of hunting for scum reaction when you make evident what you are doing?

I dislike mykonian's last post a lot, I don't see any point in it. Myko, would you care to explain what purpose it served?

I'd like to see more from afatchic and all people who have no vote placed on someone.

First of all, I don't see how talking about the setup for a few posts, as opposed to roleclaiming, can hurt the town. The scum will discuss this among themselves anyways at night, and I don't how this could be town move.

Vote:springlullaby

1. I see this as an OMGUS vote with lame reason.

2. In this game, claims give more info to scum than to town because they already know how many letters they occupy.

1.When did you vote for me.

2.I explicitly differentiated between roleclaiming and talking about setup.

1. I stated that I was willing to lynch you.

2. Look back and see that when I made the comment you quoted the discussion was on claims.

[mykonian]

First, people learn, second, if I get this right: Artem was in two different situations, first where it is used against him, second where he uses it. In the first case, off course he is going to say the argument doesn't hold, even if it did! So the first case doesn't tell you how Artem feels about the argument, therefore

you still don't have a case on Artem

. You are half of the game on Artem, without a case, and coming up with several complete illogical reasons along the game to reïnforce your nonexistant case.

[springlullaby]

For fuck sake,

yes I do

(see I can bold too). And a much stronger one than yours on me. Don't you read.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 86#1299586
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 58#1316058

[springlullaby]

First, people learn, second, if I get this right: Artem was in two different situations, first where it is used against him, second where he uses it. In the first case, off course he is going to say the argument doesn't hold, even if it did! So the first case doesn't tell you how Artem feels about the argument, therefore

you still don't have a case on Artem

. You are half of the game on Artem, without a case, and coming up with several complete illogical reasons along the game to reïnforce your nonexistant case.

I explicitly stated that it is my belief Artem was genuine when he said that the argument didn't hold. This is a judgment call, mine.

[mykonian]

what you call a case is:

meta that artem is playing like a newby.
the preemptive OMGUS. (OMGUS is a countervote WITHOUT any other reason).

I don't call this a case. I don't think artem plays like a newby, and I think meta alone is no reason to vote someone, like you did. The preemptive OMGUS doesn't apply here, as there was loads of arguing before Artem voted. There were reasons to vote Kairyuu.

And now you say that you can say that Artem didn't lie when he got attacked by that argument and said that it didn't hold. He was scum, and got attacked: if he can say that an argument doesn't hold, he will, off course. So you have a weak meta based case on Artem, where I don't believe your meta. Even if I did, meta can never form the whole case.

What is going to be your strategy? do you stay with artem, even if it is a lost case? Do you change to zade, therefore creating some confusion? Are you going back to your other case, Sekinj? Are you going to bus a partner, maybe to clear them for the next day?

[springlullaby]

*Roll eyes*, I envy your certainty. And I don't get why you are defending Artem instead of letting him answer.

As I already said before, the three people I'm willing to lynch are Artem, sekinj and Scigatt.

[mykonian]

I didn't post it to defend Artem, as I feel he doesn't need to it, and if he hasn't done by now, he has had enough time. This is more or less proving that most of the game, what you have done, apart from useless post, is picking a player, fabricating a weak case on them, and later on, find new "reasons" to reinforce your "case". These reasons haven't been too convincing. You have almost not looked at anyone except your target. That is scum play.

[mykonian]

and uncertainty is useless 1 day before deadline. On that point, you have to choose and go for it. Day two is for the new thoughts.

[Scheherazade]

Though this is still subject to change if we get stuck again before the deadline with a tie and no lynch, I will [/b]Unvote: Sekinj, Vote: springlullaby[/b].

I do this a) because I think springlullaby's posts over the past few pages haven't actually given me much insight into her thinking despite being asked questions I too want answered, which might be a tactic of scum, b) because she's reacted poorly to the criticism offered so far and to the votes against her, c) because I want to work out a compromise, and d) because my number one suspect, Sekinj, has gone on record strongly against springlullaby and I hope spring's alignment might strengthen or weaken my case against Sekinj (I'm keeping bussing in mind, too, don't worry).

[Scheherazade]

Edit: Oops.

Unvote: Sekinj, Vote: springlullaby

. That's what I get for not looking when I preview posts.

[SilverPhoenix]

Very nice educational tool, springlullaby! It's pretty funny!

Anyway, I'm not convinced guys. springlullaby's use of meta against Artem makes sense, although I personally haven't found much against Artem. This makes me think that she had to resort to desperate measures to find suspicion elsewhere, and it just seems that no one else buys it. I don't know if this is the compromise I'm willing to make. :/

[SilverPhoenix]

Then again, now that I think about it, Artem would use that argument as townie because you used it as a townie. It doesn't really matter what he said at the time you used it against him, as he was scum trying to get the suspicion deflected. He certainly could have learned his lesson and therefore used the same tactic as townie from then on.
So I take back the statement I said last post. Spring's case for Artem is weaker than I thought. Combined with me still not finding much on Artem, I think spring's argument against Artem is dead.
Does that make her scummy? Partially. I think beating a dead horse one too many times can be a signal of someone trying to be too townie. Does this warrant a vote? Not yet. I want to see spring respond to me, since my vote would put her at L-1.

[germy]

Why do people have to wait until the last week to really participate in discussion?

Unvote

Vote: springlullaby

I'm going to make this short and sweet.

For the most part, you've just pointed fingers without explaining yourself. The only times you've put an effort into an explanation has been to defend the fact that you have the right to point fingers.

[mykonian]

because in the last weak you say to yourself: "I'm right about this, lets go for it." And hold it now please. Maybe Spring wants a last word... I would do it soon. And we have a day to think this over.

[springlullaby]

I didn't post it to defend Artem, as I feel he doesn't need to it, and if he hasn't done by now, he has had enough time. This is more or less proving that most of the game, what you have done, apart from useless post, is picking a player, fabricating a weak case on them, and later on, find new "reasons" to reinforce your "case". These reasons haven't been too convincing. You have almost not looked at anyone except your target. That is scum play.

I did look at other people, actually, I looked at everyone. Man, look at your own play, you looked at no-one except me. And I did examine other people and give my opinion on everyone. I haven't been fabricating weak case.

Though this is still subject to change if we get stuck again before the deadline with a tie and no lynch, I will [/b]Unvote: Sekinj, Vote: springlullaby[/b].

I do this a) because I think springlullaby's posts over the past few pages haven't actually given me much insight into her thinking despite being asked questions I too want answered, which might be a tactic of scum, b) because she's reacted poorly to the criticism offered so far and to the votes against her, c) because I want to work out a compromise, and d) because my number one suspect, Sekinj, has gone on record strongly against springlullaby and I hope spring's alignment might strengthen or weaken my case against Sekinj (I'm keeping bussing in mind, too, don't worry).

a) What other 'insight into my thinking' do you want?
b) Quantify 'reacted poorly'.
c) Bull, just because someone goes strongly for a mislynch doesn't mean they are scum. You have to examine their stated motives.

Of all the votes against me so far, yours look more like a wagon-jump than any others.

Before anyone says that I saying that just to save my own arse or something to similar effect, don't bother, I know saying that make me looks bad, yet I'm saying it because it is what I think.

Then again, now that I think about it, Artem would use that argument as townie because you used it as a townie. It doesn't really matter what he said at the time you used it against him, as he was scum trying to get the suspicion deflected. He certainly could have learned his lesson and therefore used the same tactic as townie from then on.
So I take back the statement I said last post. Spring's case for Artem is weaker than I thought. Combined with me still not finding much on Artem, I think spring's argument against Artem is dead.
Does that make her scummy? Partially. I think beating a dead horse one too many times can be a signal of someone trying to be too townie. Does this warrant a vote? Not yet. I want to see spring respond to me, since my vote would put her at L-1.

I'm not beating a dead horse, I'm simply explaining my point to Kairyuu since he doesn't seem to understand. I'm curious as to his reaction to my educational leaflet :p. And I think there are people who genuinely are closed to that line of thinking, plus I think it is easier to 'learn from past lesson' as scum than town. A aware that my case on Artem is highly subjective, but it is based on a guts feeling and since it pleases me aesthetically, I'm defending it. Right now I really wish that Artem is scum, just to prove me right.

[Artem]

Can you please point out where I'm being pre-emptive or OMGUSy?

The post in which you vote Kairyuu is here:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 20#1299920

You see, in the above post the reasons for your vote on Kair are nowhere near clear to me. It is only one post later that you summarize your reason to vote Kairyuu. I think this is a scumtell because it is easy for scum to be argumentative, and scum often think they can get away with a vote when they 'win' a discussion point - however in this process they often forget to be assertive, that is to say to try to determine if the point they have 'won' can be in anyway indicative of the 'opponent's alignment.

First off, I don't understand what you're referring to as "winning" a discussion point.

(Let's call the post I voted in the "vote post" and the immediately following one, in which I outline the reasons, the "reason post")

I think it's pretty apparent why I'm voting Kair in the "vote post". I call him jumpy, I point out why his artem-afatchic-buddies case doesn't make sense and I'm saying that his keeping his options open is a scum play. All this is pretty consistent with the "reason post", in which I call him overly defensive and accuse him of fabricating suspicion. The two posts are consistent and less than half a day apart, so I didn't just come up with reasons for a vote after the vote. (I'm not sure if that's what you're accusing me of because like I said, I don't understand your "winning an argument" point.)

Notice here the deliberate use of the word scum in regard to Kairyuu in the post I linked, this is pretty scummy I think because even taking into consideration the reason you cited afterward, I don't imagine I would be that sure of Kairyuu's alignment at that point.

Uh-huh, at the time I was pretty convinced Kair was scum. Call it gut feeling?

Now, to explain why I said Artem's vote looked preemptively OMGUS-y, if you look back at the Artem/Kairyuu standoff, you can notice an escalation on both part, with FOS' and HOS' thrown in by both, but the origin of the dispute is Kairyuu's comment saying something along the line of 'I will keep an eye on Artem', right after Artem's first crappy vote on Kairyuu. I think Artem was simply frustrated he couldn't get Kairyuu to drop his suspicions of him, and this kind of frustration is more often scum's frustration than not.

If I were better town, I would do an historic of the dispute with quotes, but I can't summon the righteous energy right now, so you'll have to go verify my say yourself.

I went to try and verify your say and I can't see where the FoS ties in with my vote. There's part of my post where I argue about the semantics of an explicit/implicit FoS, but I don't see why you think it attributed to my vote. So I ask you again: where am I being pre-emptive and OMGUSy.

You are doing exactly what Artem did at one point. You say that I played badly because I didn't act like you claim you would have. First of all, you probably can't prove that you would have been irritated at having to claim. And secondly, I don't have to conform to your standards in order to be playing properly. Besides, I'm having too much fun in this game to put myself down because one player says I've made a bad move.

I think you are referring to Artem's 'this is exactly what I did as scum' comment addressing you. Well you see, at the time he made it, it struck me as strange because I used the exact same argument against him in Newbie 588. But you see, in Newbie 588 he wondered at my using that argument the same way you did, and I think he was being sincere, because it is certainly not a 'standard' argument coming from town and my using it is kinda an anomaly- this makes me think that him using that argument is more likely a scum 'copycatting' an argument town once used against himself than genuine thinking.

Why would I "copycat" an anomalous argument that only you would pick up on? To look more townie?

Sure, you've used "I did this as scum" argument before, but I fail to see how me using it also is a scum-tell. If somebody is playing as I did when I was scum (which is keeping their options open and then pouncing on the weakest target, as I thought Kair was doing), I'm going to point it out.

Oh but I think it holds water, I think that something you have done yourself as scum is a good indication of what another scum may do in the same situation, but I'm pretty sure my view on that is controversial. The point is Artem expressed the same view as you in Newbie 588, and -though he was scum, and I was right about him - I think he was sincere, which make me suspect him possibly

using this argument as town.

Scum slip? I thought you were pushing a case for me being scum and now I'm town all of a sudden?

(Love the cartoon in #427 )

I didn't post it to defend Artem, as I feel he doesn't need to it, and if he hasn't done by now, he has had enough time.

I apologize for not responding earlier. This week has been hell so far. I will try to keep up with this game today since we're so close to the deadline.

So, my biggest problem with Zade/afatchic was afat assuming Germy's alignment and while I'm 100% happy with Zade's defense against that, I think it's the best a replacement can give for their predecessors actions. Nothing struck me as scummy about Zade's own play and I'm going to

Unvote

I'm not happy with a Sekinj lynch, mainly because I don't understand the case against her. Thus far, it's been pages of "This is a contradiction" and "Nuh-uh, it's not". Can somebody please summarize the case against Sekinj?

I will

Vote: springlullaby

. She actively lurks, votes me based on a "gut feeling" and doesn't present the reasons for a vote until called out on it, and the reasons are not even that great. SL, you're essentially guilty of what you were accusing me of: voting with no immediately apparent reasons.

Besides SL, I also find Scigatt scummy, who lurks for several days and then comes up with a vote out of the blue and for no good reason what-so-ever.

[Artem]

*grumble* Germy voted while I was writing up my post.

I guess that makes me the hammer.

[wolframnhart]

you didn't think your case was good enough for a hammer? just a vote?

[springlullaby]

Oh, me claiming now is useless if that's what you guy are waiting for.

Final update of my scumlist:

Artem - huhuhuh
Scigatt - bad participation, and his reasons to vote me are very weak
Schez - #436 looks way, it looks like 'I know Spring is gonna cardflip town, I'm gonna use it to further a case on sekinj'

Maybe:
sekinj - very safe play, nothing scintillating
CF-Riot - due to Schez upgrade
germy - I'm pretty sure I made a post about it

The rest: probably not.

I'm glad at least SilverPhoenix found my leaflet funny.

[springlullaby]

Well, done now, preemptive bad post.

(Love the cartoon in #427 Smile)

Hehe glad you liked it.

[springlullaby]

EBWOP, that was a preemtive BAH post.

[mykonian]

it does. Now let's see what's happens.